Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Radheshyam v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2024CRLMB/486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest for offences under sections 420 and 120-B IPC and section 66(D) of the I.T. Act. The court noted a compromise was reached and cheques were issued, directing the complainant's right to seek bail cancellation if cheques are dishonoured.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- plus two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, conditioned on cheque encashment and appearance.

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Radheshyam Vs the State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 486/2024

¶3

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 53 Years, R/o C- 1421, Urban Home Adtiya World City, Sahapura, District Bamhara (Uttar Pradesh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan-PP Mr. Girish Khandelwal

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

13/05/2024

¶12

This instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.10/2023, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Thana (Baran), District Baran for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, a compromise has arrived at between the parties and the petitioner has issued two cheques of Rs.1,70,000/and 1,75,000/- in favour of the complainant for the dates i.e. 11.07.2024 and 21.07.2024. Counsel submits that an affidavit has been submitted by the complainant in this regard, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner.

¶14

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but the counsel for the complainant supported the

¶15

[CRLMB-486/2024]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

version of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that though two cheques of future dates have been received, so a conditional bail be granted to the petitioner subject to encashment of the aforesaid cheques. Counsel further submits that a liberty be granted to the complainant to move an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in case, the cheques are dishonoured.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 5 Since the alleged offence is punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and the same is of personal nature and looking to the fact that parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Sanjeev Kumar S/o Radheshyam , in connection with FIR No.10/2023, Police Station Cyber Police Station (Baran), District Baran, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶20

(i). that the petitioner/s shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required

¶21

(ii). that the petitioner/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

¶22

(iii). that the petitioner/s shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-486/2024]

¶25

(iv) the complainant would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in case, cheques are dishonoured.

¶26

The compromise deed dated 10.05.2024 is ordered to be

¶27

taken on record.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

Ashu/7

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Radheshyam v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Radheshyam v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Banshi Lal S/O Late Shri Pesu Mal

Prithvi Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Prasad and Ors.

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahai Yogi Vs Gram Panchayat Hansmahal

Suwalal Son of Gopi by Caste Raigar Vs State of

Ramchandra S/O Shri Prabhu Lal B/C Brahman Vs Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Raghunath B/C Chorsiya

Ishu S/O Pooran Singh Vs State of Rajasthan